IS THE WEISS 204 A SUBSTANIAL UPGRADE FRON THE CHORD QUTEST

Weiss 501 on USAM

I have not dealt with this seller personally so looking at feedback, having an actual phone conversation, etc. is advisable when making a purchase like this. 
 

When it comes to 204 although I never heard it, the use of switch mode power supply is an immediate deal breaker for me. Having had the Qutest and the TT2 I am familiar witj how sensitive these DACs are to power. Yes you can get the upgraded Weiss linear power supply but why the need for two boxes?
Your $5,000 budget is good enough to get an excellent DAC. The 501 uses linear power supply and is a single box. Other DACs to consider in this price range - Bricasti, Meitner, Denafrips Terminator, Holo Audio May KTE, etc 

Looks like you’re in NY so this 501 may be a local pick up for you. 

Resolution is defined by the sample rate and bit depth. Both of those in turn are defined by your source. Any DAC that changes even a single bit in the bitstream is by definition, defective. So, no. The Weiss will not have, cannot have, better resolution. Nor is it likely to be meaningfully quieter, since the noise floor to peak output on both is far greater than dynamic range of your room noise floor to peak system SPL, which in most domestic systems is lucky if it hits 60dB.

That said, does it have noticeably better reconstruction filters or a better analog output? Those are things you may possibly determine through listening.

@panzrwagn you’re mostly correct. Weiss cannot have better resolution than the Chord Qutest. If we’re talking about the bitrate. Now…better power supply, better clock, isolated USB, better analog stage, etc. that’s what matters. You get lower noise floor that results in better resolution of detail, not better resolution in bitrate terms.

Can you make a recommendation or do all DACs sound the same?

All DACS must be 100% accurate in decoding the bitstream or else they are defective. So yes, all DACS have to sound the same. Where they may vary is in reconstruction filters and analog output stage.

Power supply differences are again largely mythical unless you are seeing power supply spuriae in the audio bandwidth and at levels within the dynamic range of the system. If your system has a peak SPL of, say, 113 dB, that requires a 90dB sensitive speaker and 200W of amp. If the noise level in your home is 50dB, that gives you a system dynamic range of 113-50 = 63dB. If the noise from your DAC is -100dB, improving to -110 dB is "measurable, not meaningful" because that noise is already so far below the noise floor of your system. Just like if wearing a certain type of shoe sole reduces your chances of being struck by lightning by 50%, no rational person is going to throw out all their other shoes. The improvement is measurable, not meaningful. 

So, you may find very minor improvements from reconstruction filters or analog line driver circuitry, That's for your ears to decide.

Far more likely, any improvements in your (very nice, BTW) system can be achieved through improved room acoustics. Far and away the weakest point in most systems. 

I have the Weiss 204 with a sbooster LPSU upgrade. I believe sound wise it was a substantial upgrade over the qutest (I have it for test with a upgraded power supply too) and the Weiss 204 with the LPSU is just a tad bit behind the Holo May KTE in resolution and a bit of nuance in the lower registers. Overall very happy with the Weiss and can recommend it without reservations.

@panzrwafn

That Sir, is an excellent answer.  
 

@panzrwagn got it. Thanks for the system compliments if they were directed to me. 
We have a difference of opinion. Mine’s based on experience with different DACs at different price points. None of them were defective. All sounded different.
I wish a $50 DAC was as good as.my current DAC but we live in a real and not theoretical world so that’s just not the case.

Happy Holidays to you!

@audphile1

I think I wasn’t clear in what I was saying. The job of a DAC is to convert the digital bitstream input into an analog output. All DACs must do that identically or the ones at variance are defective. But that part of the job is incomplete. The signal must then pass through reconstruction filters, then passed through an analog line stage before one can listen.

The reconsruction filter used in a digital to analog converter that eliminates the stair-stepped waveforms created in the digital sampling process and restores frequency, amplitude, and phase of the original signal. The process of digital sampling creates stair-stepped waveforms that resemble square waves (increasingly so at higher frequencies). These waveforms contain the original signal, but also have high frequency noise and harmonics added to it. The reconstruction filter – which is basically a low pass filter – removes all of the high frequency signal above the Nyquist frequency that was induced because of the sampling process, leaving a “smooth” sinusoidal type waveform resembling the signal that was originally sampled.

lAnd it is in those stages that the differences in sound quality originate, not in the DAC stage itself. It is our tendency to group those stages and refer to it as the DAC. The difference is not just semantic, rather it enables us to focus the discussion on those areas that actually can impact sound quality.

https://support.auralic.com/hc/en-us/articles/206806457-What-s-the-Difference-Between-PCM-and-DSD#:~:text=A%20reconstruction%20filter%20is%20typically%20used%20in,are%20normally%20used%20in%20PCM%20encoding%20systems.&text=The%20dynamic%20range%20of%20DSD%20decreases%20quickly,rising%20noise%20floor%20just%20above%2020%20kHz. 

@Panzrwagn -  that analysis is based on the frequency domain. The time domain is also important.

I’m using a sonnet Pasithea and the detail retrieval is absolutely incredible. Worth a look and around your price point.